Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
. "the communicators" airs tonight on c-span. >> last week, he talked about the strategy toward al qaeda. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening. thank you for coming. it is an honor to be introducing my boss. he is one of the most respected and experienced hands in washington. his reputation is legendary. he's chairman of the house budget committee when the actually passed a budget. his chief of staff to president clinton in the white house. now secretary of defense. what in the world are you going to do next? this is not action do justice to the man. leon panetta is a wonderful human being and in some ways a man of contrasts. i am going to give you examples. he is known among his counterparts around the world for his warm italian bear hugs. he is also known for the laser light focus he displayed on hunting down osama bin laden. he often holds meetings in his pentagon office with his dog curled up around his feet as he is pressing a commander on how a war plan is going to advance or how they are going to make more progress. when traveling, who he is known to hang out in
us tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: you begin the book with a raid on an al-qaeda commander named muthana which led to the treasure trove of information that took us there. explain how there are little bits and pieces that created the web of the successful raid. >> that was the raid that general mcchrystal has cited as probably the most significant in the war in iraq because it basically delivered up a database of about 500 names of al-qaeda fighters who had come to iraq through syria. so not only were they able to take apart that organization by identifying all those folks and finding them, it also illustrated that the the al-qaeda movement in iraq was primarily a foreign movement, not an indigenous. that's one of the things that helped to turn the sunnies getsal al-qaeda. >> eliot: and you highlighted that they would use it and form and see linkages that might not have been possible to see many years back using new software and computer techniques that began to create--sort of out of a science fiction movie where you say these are the links these are the bank it's a, and t
it a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an antimuslim film and did not mention the link to al qaeda. after all this taking on her critics, the republican senators weren't impressed. >> bottom line, i'm more dist b disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. >> rice maintains she did nothing wrong. issuing a statement saying we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage of this process. peter brooks is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, general wesly clark and, of course, former democratic presidential candidate. senator mccain was asked who do you blame more at this point? ambassador rice or president obama? he says the president is ultimately responsible. do you agree this is no longer about susan rice? she has cleared the air about her name? >> i don't think so. i mean, i'll let the senator speak for himself, i wasn'
than it was before -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode is related to the video they created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. at the end of the day we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just so you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give that information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got that information on 16 september. think about information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give that information, isn't it better to give no information about? my belief is not only is the information that, but i'm more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to get the scenario is presented by ambassador rice and
amended it to say or it could have been about the movie. >> they certainly didn't want to say al-qaeda, hamas or hezbollah. they didn't want to blame someone early. here is the white house defending their position, the spokesperson president press briefing. >> there are no unanswered questions about ambassador rice's appearance on sundays shows and the talking points that she used for those appearances that were provided by the intelligence community. those questions have been answered. >> cenk: yeah, look, again i'm not putting it on susan rice. someone changed the talking points. john mccain is on with her on that same face the nation says no way it's a terrorist attack, it was coordinated. >> they had the talking points and went against them. you're with the three amigos, you're the fourth amigo. >> cenk: let's go on to something different. touree. >> old white establishment folks wrongly and repeatedly attacking a much younger black woman moments after an election in which blacks and women strongly went blue. >> cenk: do you think this has anything to do with rice' gender or race?
, common interests, that the talibans, al qaeda will take over that country. and i think there is very, very important possibility. iraq, same thing. where is iraq going? i think it is high time that u.s. and iran start dialogue on these two strategically important issues. totally neglected and i'm a little upset about that. because what u.s. must swallow is it has to eliminate all talking about regime change in iran. it is up to the iranian people, reform is, the people who like to change the society. it's not united states which should make a regime change. and, of course, therefore, i think establish thematic relations. [inaudible] with switzerland or, wonderful diplomatic, wonderful people, but still, you have to have, take a have the courage to talk to the other guy and try to establish relations. and not send information through newspapers or brussels or other places. it is the u.s. should establish its own direct dialogue. so that's one thing. and the other, the inspections, and i think there is almost too simple to be true. i mean, one should recognize iran's right to enrich, e
is as dangerous as any time that i can remember. despite claims by some, al qaeda and its affiliates remain dangerous and determined to kill americans. this reality must force us to reassess the threat to u.s. embassies and consulates around the world and provide additional resources in military end strength, that's u.s. marines, to increase protection of diplomatic personnel from those threats. this amendment will do that. it will provide the necessary end strength and resources to support an increase in marine corps security at u.s. consulates and embassies throughout the world. up to a thousand additional personnel. in particular, at locations identified by the secretary of state as in need of increased security in light of known and emerging threats to the united states personnel and property by terrorists. most americans believe that u.s. marines are stationed to protect our embassy personnel abroad, but i think they will be surprised to learn that marines are assigned in only slightly more than half of our diplomatic missions worldwide. 182 missions in 137 countries. moreover, their n
. anybody looking at the threats, it would jump out at you that this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity i think it is pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a mob that turned into a riot was far afield and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust, and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? my belief is, not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as pres
this growing asymmetry of power and not just al qaeda, hezbollah was the cyberspace, but it can be very positive, too. the next is bill gates a nonstate, look what he's done and how he's contributed. zucker berquist is to develop a society of a billion people network. there's been a positive examples if you look at the asymmetry of power. i won't nonstate at yours and increasingly this complex, global, integrated that oldfield or marketplace. such is the nature of war and risk we have to understand better. secondly, cyberspace. my good friend, general mike hayden has talked about the coming pearl harbor in cyberspace and i agree with him. it's going to happen and we are willfully bug prepared. the third area i was stressed is the growing demographic shift worldwide. for the first time as of last year more people live in cities and that trend is accelerating. if you like in societies like africa, what does that mean in terms of demographics or resources? these changes will accelerate and we need to be better prepared for the across-the-board. those are three large general chunks we shoul
. the dni explaining that the talking points as they're called were changed. if that reference to al qaeda was taken out. one to be an intelligence issue. i think what's happening is there is no final answer yet on everything that is concerned with benghazi until those investigations are completed, and those investigations, of course, are the fbi investigation and then also the state department's own investigation. so at this point it's not -- i don't think it's really getting a lot of traction. there's not a lot of change. you have ambassador rice coming out and saying that she raid the points that were presented to her by the intelligence community, but then there was one senator who said, well, she should have gone further. she should have investigated or questioned those. those are all legitimate questions. i don't think that they are going to be totally resolved. i think the questions are going to continue until there might be some type of resolution, you know, when the whole very sad and tragic affair is understood. >> all right. we're going have to leave it at that. i want to have m
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)